Funny, I used the exact same reference and also thought it was that concept inverted.
Related to the normalcy bias Normalcy bias - Wikipedia
It could be said that you are engaging in the “begging the question” fallacy by assuming without evidence that the response has reduced incidences of Covid-19.
This being GQ and all, I’m not arguing against that position, but couldn’t your position be restated as claiming those who dispute the idea that banging two sticks together to keep aliens at bay are committing a logical fallacy because they simply don’t understand that the only reason that they don’t see any aliens is because another person is banging two sticks together?
Again, I agree with you, but I think a little more work needs done before accusing others of a logical fallacy.
I think the efficacies of these interventions have been well enough established by scientific analysis of responses to past epidemics that I can reasonably be absolved of begging the question.
Then it’ll depend on which cases are the ones that get verified, in the population you’re looking at. In countries with a shortage of tests, it’s mostly the ones with the most severe symptoms who get tested, and the mortality rate is unsurprisingly higher among those with the most severe symptoms. In populations where tests are abundant, and a representative sample of the population is tested, regardless of severity or even presence of symptoms, over half of the infected show no symptoms at all, and less than 1% of the infected die.
A more recent example is the US VA Medical system. They had problems starting in the early 2000’s dealing with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and amputation cases. The system was lacking in both expertise (not enough doctors trained in these specialties) and in equipment/supplies.
Mainly because of the Gulf War/Afghanistan, and the use of roadside bombs, etc., and the improvements in combat medics, medivac stabilization & such. This meant the same thing as WWI helmets: more soldiers were saved from death than ever before, so that in years after these veterans were alive, and needed treatment by the VA system for the aftereffects of such injuries. And the system wasn’t ready for this, because previously soldiers with such injuries had always died. It took some years for the system to ramp enough to adequately deal with this. (And the chronic under-funding of the system didn’t help!)
I do too, but the person who would be questioning you has clearly not accepted your premise and until you have laid out the argument as to why the particular interventions have been effective, you could be accused of question begging.
That is the point/counterpoint:
Person: We didn’t need all of this shit because look at how low the death rate is!
You: Yes, but here is data X, Y, and Z as to why what we did made the death rate lower.
Without those data points, it could be this:
Person: You didn’t need those two sticks to bang together there are no aliens.
You: Yes, but don’t you understand that those two sticks are what kept them away?
What makes the argument different is the data, and if you have an interest in convincing the other person that your argument is correct, you need that data because that other person isn’t buying it yet. Sure, you could handwaive the person away as a kook, but it seems like you have expressed an interest in engaging that person and educating them about their incorrect belief.
ETA: I don’t think that the person is committing a logical fallacy. He is simply failing to accept as true one of your premises.
Sorry for the double post. But take this argument:
-
All mammals give birth to live young.
-
A dog is a mammal.
Therefore:
Dogs give birth to live young.
If I am not convinced that a dog is a mammal, then I am not committing a logical fallacy by not accepting your conclusion. I am committing a factual error.
Yes, less than 1%. But the flu kills 0.1%. One of those numbers is much higher than the other.
And that’s with me ignoring that that those places with lots of testing also tend to have better medical care and thus lower death rates.
I don’t understand why any of this is being treated like anything other than fact at this point. Covid-19 is more deadly than the flu. That’s why we’re willing to tank our economy. Usually the reason for denying the science is religion or politics, but all sides are on board now.
This is a fact, and those who are addressed in the OP are merely deniers of fact. Best I can guess is that they are in a sort of grieving state of denial.
If it doesn’t already have a name I’d call it the Y2K Fallacy
The Y2K bug is a threat
We spend time, money and energy mitigating it
As a result, the Y2K bug has minimal impact
Therefore the Y2K bug was not really a threat.
Albeit in different words, that’s exactly what I said to a friend a few weeks ago.
Regarding Covid being less deadly than the flu, it seems to me people that say that either don’t understand what they’re hearing or are listening to people that are manipulating the numbers. That is, if you hear that 60,000 people died of the flu and only 10,000 died of covid-19, of course you’re going to walk away from that thinking it’s no big deal. However, people don’t understand that it’s still early in the ‘covid season’ and the amount of deaths isn’t the same as the death rate. You have to remember that if 60,000 people died from the flu, it’s because 45 million people got it. Do the math and see how many people would die if 45 million people got covid.
Also, nothing is helped by the shear amount of people that get their information from facebook, political facebook groups and people on facebook that are outright making things up.
I’m still hearing people say that the virus first sits in the back of your throat for a few days and all you have to do is drink lots of water so that if you get it, you can wash it into your stomach instead of it getting inhaled into your lungs, then you’re fine.
Seriously, people are convinced that they can’t get it so long as they drink enough water.
I like the anti-anti-vaxxer memes I’ve been seeing, saying something along the lines of “you want a world without vaccines, here’s what the world looks like when we’re missing a single vaccine”.
I think the 20% projected hospitalization rate (since been lowered dramatically) was a bigger concern than the fatality rate. Not only does the fatality rate of Covid-19 patients skyrocket without access to ventilators, but non-Covid patients start dying from lack of proper medical care as well.
Other examples are acid rain and ozone hole. Both problems were mitigated through massive efforts to reduce pollution & freon emissions. But a lot of people seem to be convinced that those concerns were overblown because the problems went away.